What is it about pro-administration people that, whenever they open their mouths, they inevitably put their foot in them. We have all witnessed the embarrassment that Senators Risa Hontiveros, Tito Sotto and Kiko Pangilinan have heaped upon themselves when they took to the floor of the Senate recently. Hontiveros and Sotto — not being lawyers — may be forgiven (somewhat), but what of Pangilinan?

The latest pro-government character to make a spectacle of herself is Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Undersecretary Claire Castro, the default spokesperson of the President. Commenting on Sen. Robin Padilla’s proposal for mandatory drug testing for government officials, she peremptorily blurted out that this was “unconstitutional,” citing the 2008 case of Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board et al., quickly adding that Padilla should have studied his proposal more.

As it turns out, it is Castro who should have studied her comments more, since it would appear that they were rooted in a shallow and defective reading of the ponencia of Mr. Justice Presbiterio Velasco. The SJS dealt with provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act prescribing mandatory drug testing for CANDIDATES for elective and appointive government posts. Senate Bill (SB) 1200 mandates annual drug tests for public officials.

Therein lies the difference, dear Ate Kler. What was struck down by the Supreme Court was mandatory drug tests for CANDIDATES for public office who are NOT YET PUBLIC OFFICIALS, and therefore are PRIVATE CITIZENS. If Castro had only bothered to read with discernment, she would have realized that the ratio decidendi of the SJS was founded mainly on the right to privacy. On the other hand, in the case of those already elected or appointed to public office the constitutional doctrine that public office is a public trust must come into play.

While this does not mean that a public officer loses all his rights to privacy, appointment to public office necessarily carries with it certain burdens. For instance, one is required to annually file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. A public official’s entitlement to the provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act may also be forfeited if there is an investigation into possible acts of corruption. They may also be subjected to a lifestyle check, and their financial transactions verified under certain laws. Their entry into casinos and travels abroad are regulated, even if they use private funds therefor. Even their private love affairs may be scrutinized to determine adherence to the Code of Conduct prescribed by law for public officials.

All of these measures have passed constitutional muster as part of mechanisms designed to ensure that those who hold themselves out to serve in government do so with the utmost integrity, probity, honesty, and freedom from undue pressure and influence and other disabilities. The same is true with respect to drug tests: the public has a right to know if those who govern them are under the influence of substances that may impair their judgment and decision-making processes. Thus, it is unintelligent to extend the doctrine laid down in SJS for private individuals to those already in public service.

What Attorney Castro merely succeeded in doing by her unseemly act of prejudging an activity that falls under the purely plenary power of the Legislature to undertake, aside from exposing her intellectual shortcomings, is to underscore the ultra-defensive posture the Palace takes when it comes to drug testing, which leads one to wonder if it is hiding something.

Truly, the lady doth protest too much by contesting proposed legislation on drug tests that is plausible and feasible, or at least still subject to legal debate by our lawmakers.